remember all those marriage protection amendments?

[acroyear]

You know, the ones where the proponents insisted verbally that the amendment didn't mean that same sex couples that get private contractual agreements for benefits would have their rights to such contracts and benefits slashed?

And remember how we read them as saying EXACTLY that - that the text was precisely the type that would void such contracts and give gay couples absolutely no rights at all.

And they insisted NO, we wouldn't want to do something like that, we just want to protect marriage.

Well, the courts have finally had their say, and we were right.

Gay couples are fucked.

As are their children.

No health care benefits even if the company wants to give them, no visitation rights in a hospital, no beneficiary agreements for stocks and insurance, no joint mortgages, nothing.  not even a car loan co-signing.

In the state of Michigan, if these contracts involve a gay couple they are as of now null and void.

The religious right assholes just got their wish - being gay means being a second class citizen in that state forever.

Dispatches from the Culture Wars: Michigan Partnership Benefits Killed by Court:

In a long-awaited and very disappointing ruling, the Michigan Supreme Court has ruled that any partnership benefits granted to gay couples, even those as part of negotiated union agreements, are unconstitutional under the anti-gay marriage amendment, Proposal 2, passed in 2004. After the passage of that amendment, the attorney general ruled that a state contract that included such benefits was illegal and that ruling was challenged on behalf of several cities and public universities in the state.

The district court ruled that Proposal 2 did not affect such benefits, but that was overturned by the appeals court and the supreme court upheld the appeals court ruling. The tragic irony of this is that despite the "save the children" rhetoric from the anti-gay crowd, the first people affected by this ruling will be the children of gay couples who may lose health care and other protections as a result.

What makes me pissed is this exact same text passed in Virginia and no matter how hard I tried to explain that this would happen, I still couldn't get my mother passed the "but it's protecting marriage" bullshit.

She voted for it here.

And REALLY pissed me off.

And this is why.

You give a community an anonymous way to show themselves as utter bigots and they will do exactly that.  The churches of the religious right today are utterly founded on principles bigotry and hatred.

And yes, I WILL hate them back.

Comments

[3fingeredsalute.livejournal.com]

[obligatory "I am not a lawyer" here]

How can that possibly be true? I will go so far as to say that I firmly believe your claim is wrong. Let me try to explain why I believe that before you slap me again. *g*

I am able to name ANYONE for ANY REASON to make my medical decisions for me if I am incapacitated. That is called an "Advance Directive" and it has nothing to do with my relationship with the individuals I name.

Likewise I am able to give ANYONE for ANY REASON legal authority to represent my financial affairs if I so choose. That document is called "Durable Power of Attorney". That person could be my trusted stockbroker, my clergy, my close friend or any scumwad telemarketer who I let talk me into it. [edit: Slight definition update -- the "Durable Power of Attorney" is one of a family of "Power of Attorney" documents. There are specific Powers of Attorney you can attribute for specific tasks -- such as incapacitation (which requires court definition) and specific to real estate, etc. A "Durable Power of Attorney" says an individual for any reason can handle my finances, so it is a rather air-tight and compelling document issuing the claims I stated in the paragraph previously.]

I am able to name ANYONE for ANY REASON to be my legal beneficiary if I die. That is called a "Last Will and Testament" (or various instruments known as "Trusts") and likewise has nothing to do with spousal rights or relations. I can leave my entire estate to a charity, or to a pet, or my neighbor, or my neighbor's pet's charity. Likewise, I am entitled to EXCLUDE my spouse, my parents, my children or my siblings. It might be contested in court, but that is the reason for having this documents in the first place. If I am competent, I get to name those individuals I wish to include and exclude unless it can be proven it was under duress or other legal claim that the Will was subversive.

There is not ONE THING that would render any of those specifically crafted legal documents null and void through this decision. The only thing it renders null and void is their civil union or marriage, and the rights and privileges that are assumed as if you are married. It's the defacto response if you leave no instructions that were removed, NOT the careful legal documents you are now forced to put into place. If you had them before, they still stand. If you don't have any such documents, NOW you are forced to pay a lawyer to draft for you because you no longer are entitled due to the state's myopic view on the definition of a couple.

[acroyear70.livejournal.com]

Yes, I'm probably reading too much into the MI wording based on the Virginia text. As I wrote elsewhere - I was reading the Virginia version of the text into this which IS written in such a way that the very contracts you describe here might no validity in this state's courts.

"Nor shall this Commonwealth or its political subdivisions create or recognize another union, partnership, or other legal status to which is assigned the rights, benefits, obligations, qualities, or effects of marriage."

It's questionable. The wording may actually permit the state to refuse to recognize some aspects of a Trust if it implies a "marriage-like" partnership.

From an editorial in the Post:

Moreover, Virginia is the only state to forbid even private companies, unless self-insured, from extending health insurance benefits to unmarried couples. That provision affects cohabiting straights but works a far greater hardship on gay couples, who cannot marry.

Those steps, however, impinge on the power of third parties (corporations and the government) to recognize gay couples. In the Marriage Affirmation Act, Virginia appears to abridge gay individuals' right to enter into private contracts with each other. On its face, the law could interfere with wills, medical directives, powers of attorney, child custody and property arrangements, even perhaps joint bank accounts. If a gay Californian was hit by a bus in Arlington, her medical power of attorney might be worthless there. "Sorry," the hospital might have to say to her frantic partner, "your contract means nothing here. Now leave before we call security."

Now, this is broad enough and specific enough that it may be a violation of The Contract Clause (Article 1) and thus actionable in federal court, but it needs a test case first and that is expensive...

[3fingeredsalute.livejournal.com]

I hear what you are saying, and I cringe at the ridiculousness of the reasons behind their attempting to dismantle legal documents, however -- I will one more time say "carefully crafted legal documents". If there is no reference to "my husband/wife/spouse" and simply naming the individual by their name, or as their "friend" with the name, then I firmly believe the document(s) can not be contested by the grounds of that specific legislation. There simply is no precedent to render these nearly universally accepted documents. Not even with the state legislators decrying their omnipotent infallibility.

Then again, let McCain become President in '08, and we will have a Federal Supreme Court which won't overturn Virginia/Michigan's stupefying attempt to legislate shamelessly discriminatory intollerance.

Let me put it this way...

[acroyear70.livejournal.com]

On paragraph 1, I hope you're right, and when someone finally has the need and the will to challenge it, I'll contribute to the legal fund.

On paragraph 2? *shudder*

[voltbang.livejournal.com]

Just because you don't put your intentions in writing as part of the document, doesn't mean they don't exist. If you are part of a same sex couple, and the document provides a benefit of marriage, the court can find, reasonably that it meets the terms laid out in the law. The law isn't reasonable, but that's not the point, the document meets the definition in the law. The court can't find the constitution unconstitutional.

And, I said the same things when the ammendment was proposed. It says "no contract", and I want to know, who gets the car, who gets the payments already made? The contract can be ruled null and void, and all that's left is letting the court split up the stuff the way it says the stuff should be.

[3fingeredsalute.livejournal.com]

If the proper legal documents are in place, the court has no say in who gets what. It is predetermined by your document of wishes.

The legally defined definition of "spouse" applies to a man and a woman in these cases. Spouses are given certain rights. Those SAME rights can be duplicated and never revoked with proper legal documents which should have been redundant, but never really are.

The best way to put this is, EVERYONE should have legal documents in place. Most of us depend on the definition of what will happen if we do nothing. We can NOT do nothing in a society who swings like a pendulum (or a corpse on a hangman's noose) to the will of public opinion.

Your "will", as you put it, MUST be expressed in a well-crafted legal document if you are a same-sex couple, as it stands now. Perhaps you are agreeing with me, but it sounded like you might not be. "No contract" means by virtue of marriage. It does not, whatsoever, imply all rights to that person do not exist outside of that definition.